Appeal 6001152

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

An application for costs has been made by the appellant against Plymouth City Council and is subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises the rear garden of [site address] . The garden is a generous size and slopes downwards toward [address] where it is separated from the road by fencing, a steep bank containing recently planted saplings and a grass verge.

The surrounding area is residential with an undulating topography. The wider landscape features rolling green hills that are visible beyond the edge of the settlement. Given its size and the naturally sloped landform that descends toward [address], the appeal site positively reflects and contributes to the character of this landscape.

The planning history for the site indicates that a previous proposal for two dwellings was dismissed on appeal1.The Inspector determining this appeal was of the view that due to the “largely unbroken natural green band of land extending the length of 1 APP/N1160/W/223294648 the eastern side of [address] that contains no frontage development”, the land that forms the current appeal site is of significant amenity value and is an important feature of the character of the area. I concur with these views.

Unlike the previous appeal, this proposal is not for housing, and the land would remain as garden space associated with the residential use of [site address] . However, it would nonetheless appear heavily engineered due to the large area to be levelled, the significant change in the top to bottom level, and the tiered retaining wall that would measure around 3 metres in height. These factors taken together would not reflect the more natural and softer land levels that contribute positively to the area.

The proposal would therefore have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Accordingly, it would conflict with Policies DEV20 and DEV23 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2019). These policies require development to contribute positively to both townscape and landscape and seek to avoid significant and adverse landscape or visual impacts. For the same reasons it would not comply with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which says that decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping.

In support of the appeal, my attention has been drawn to a Certificate of Lawful Development (LDC) for an outbuilding on the same land. However, it does not follow that if planning permission is not forthcoming to carry out these engineering works, that the outbuilding for which the appellant has an LDC is then erected given that they are two entirely different forms of development. In any case, an outbuilding, even one with the footprint indicated, is not an uncommon feature in gardens. The fallback would not harm the character and appearance of the area as the engineering works in this proposal would do. This limits the weight I can attribute the fallback.

Moreover, it has been suggested that a condition could be imposed that requires a landscaping and planting scheme to be implemented. However, such a condition would not overcome the harm identified given the surrounding topography, the height of the proposed retaining wall, and the difference in ground levels.

The appellant describes how the housing land supply has changed since the previous appeal, and that this may have influenced that decision, had the Inspector known then about the supply position as it stands today. However, appeals are determined in the present. This is not a factor to which I can attribute any weight. In any event, that case was for housing, whereas this proposal is for engineering works.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan read as a whole and the Framework read as a whole. There are no material considerations advanced, which indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.